A Geometric Perspective on Stabilizing Value Conflict Resolution

Significant progress has been made in aligning LLMs with target value functions. We argue that, even when an LLM has been well aligned in (post-)training, it may still fail to maximise the aligned value in reasoning. We mathematically formalise this gap as rational value risk: the utility discrepancy between a model's deployed reasoning strategy and its rational counterpart whose responses maximise utility in the steepest direction. The estimation error of rational value risk is further decomposed into three components from bounded prompts, bounded responses, and imperfect verifiers. Extensive experiments are conducted, covering models Llama-3.1, Qwen-2.5, Tülu-3 families (7B-72B), GPT-5.2, GPT-5.5, and DeepSeek-V4, and benchmarks UltraFeedback, AlpacaEval, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval, and MathArena. The results validate that (1) rational value risk is widespread; (2) value alignment can reduce, but cannot avoid, it; (3) self-consistency can improve rationality; and (4) a longer chain of thought improves rationality but with diminishing returns. The code is at https://github.com/EVIEHub/LLM-Rationality

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become central to LLM reasoning, but its outcome-level rewards can make models more willing to give confident answers when evidence or reasoning is unreliable. Existing SFT or RL methods mainly teach LLMs to refuse or express uncertainty at the response level, which can overfit abstention behavior rather than improve reasoning reliability. To address this limitation, we propose Cognitive Pairwise Training (CPT), a cognitive mid-training alignment stage that turns pairwise comparisons over reasoning traces into a reusable alignment signal. By learning to distinguish trustworthy from flawed reasoning, CPT encourages the model to internalize a reasoning-quality discrimination boundary rather than memorize surface refusal patterns. Across five model scales and three model families, CPT improves the reasoning--metacognition trade-off. At 14B, CPT+RL outperforms the standard SFT+RL pipeline by +2.2 math-average points and +5.2 abstention-F1 points. Further analyses show that CPT improves trace quality and exhibits strong robustness and scalability across evaluation and training settings. Code and models are released at https://github.com/Tsinghua-dhy/CPT.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains the standard baseline for evaluating models' reasoning abilities. Originally, this technique was introduced to elicit step-by-step reasoning from large language models (LLMs), which would otherwise tend to directly output the final answer. However, many modern LLMs produce CoT-style responses \textit{natively} when presented with reasoning tasks, which made us revisit the effectiveness of standard CoT prompting. We evaluate several modern mid-sized language models on a math problem-solving task and find that models specialized for reasoning achieve better performance in a simple zero-shot setting than when using few-shot CoT examples - significantly surpassing officially reported results at no additional cost (e.g., from $\sim$77% to $\sim$84% for Mathstral on GSM8K). For the tested general-purpose model, a zero-shot CoT prompt is also sufficient to outperform a few-shot CoT baseline. We attribute this to a `guidance-distraction' tradeoff: standard CoT prompting also demands style adaptation, formatting compliance, and potentially undesired contextualization, which can distract models from the core reasoning task. Our findings suggest that using standard CoT prompting increasingly acts as a source of distraction as models grow stronger.